How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

[Dedans Penthouse]

Originally Posted by Hood_Man

Surely nobody prances about in gold anyway? More like lurching awkwardly under the enormous strain of all that heavy but valuable metal weighing you down.

Would certainly ruin his footwork anyway.

^^^
LOL. Indeed my good (Hood) man, we should all 'prance' so well. regards.

Originally Posted by Surfer Rosa Rack

Listen you idiot, cut it out!!! Roger's the GOAT and there is nothing you or any other *******s can say about it!

The greatest!!! Do you understand you stupid ****?

Um,...er, ok Rosa, if that's the way you feel about it....tell you what, you hot to trot little twat, calm down and sit on my face instead..

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Federer might be the greatest of all time, yes, but this list is sensationalist tripe and I don't see why anybody would use it to bolster the claim that Federer is the greatest. I don't know about a serious tennis historian that would rank Gonzales below players like Emerson, or Emerson at 11 when he wasn't even in the top 5 (maybe not even top 8 ) of his own era.

There's a difference -- a huge one -- between journalist and historian. It doesn't matter how "expertly" these guys are, if they have little knowledge of half the guys they are ranking.

Exactly. Given such absurdities of the list as Emerson being at 11 and Gonzales being at only 22 I would love to see a list of this supposed group of experts, historians, former players, etc....It wouldnt surprise me if the list included people like Jon Wertheim, Luke Jensen, Mary Carillo, Peter Bodo, Ted Robinson, Bill Mcatee, and ex greats who have are well known to have fried their brains with excessive and dangerous high drug use since their playing days- Borg and Wilander.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

That was in 1969, sorry but time doesn't stand still. Like Mark Spitz, Laver is not the greatest based on the overall fans perception/opinion.

Many experts from the tennis channel have analyze/study all the great player and have come up with this list:

GREATEST MALE TENNIS PLAYERS

1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Don Budge
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden
11 Roy Emerson
12 Ivan Lendl
13 Ken Rosewall
14 Boris Becker
15 Fred Perry
16 Stefan Edberg
17 Arthur Ashe
18 John Newcombe
19 Lew Hoad
20 Mats Wilander
21 Jack Kramer
22 Pancho Gonzales
23 Rene Lacoste
24 Novak Djokovic
25 Guillermo Vilas
26 Jim Courier
27 Henri Cochet
28 Jean Borotha
29 Frank Sedgman
30 Ilie Nastase
31 Tony Trabert
32 Jack Crawford
33 Manuel Santana
34 Guga Kuerten
35 Stan Smith
36 Neale Fraser
37 Lleyton Hewitt
38 Ellsworth Vines
39 Pancho Segura
40 Bobby Riggs
41 Fred Stolle
42 Patrick Rafter
43 Gottfried Von Cramm
44 Jaroslave Drobny
45 Tony Roche
46 William Renshaw
47 Marat Safin
48 Vic Seixas
49 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
50 Jan Kodes
51 Norman Brookes
52 Yannick Noah
53 Tony Wilding
54 Bill Johnston
55 Nicola Pietrangeli
56 Andy Roddick
57 Thomas Muster
58 Manuel Orantes
59 Pat Cash
60 Henry Austin
61 Michael Chang

[/quote]

The list is, as seasoned posters mostly claimed, very biassed.

it is not Laver´s fault if Federer never wins the Gran Slam ( not even in the pathetic fields of Fed´s best year 2006 he was able to do it...)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The bolded parts already eliminate any credability the list had. Emerson 11 spots higher than Pancho Gonzales, hahahaha

Agassi at 7 is still a bigger joke than that....

[Prisoner of Birth]

The list is, as seasoned posters mostly claimed, very biassed.

it is not Laver´s fault if Federer never wins the Gran Slam ( not even in the pathetic fields of Fed´s best year 2006 he was able to do it...)

And it's not Federer's fault Laver was banned from playing Grand Slams for the most of his prime. See, I can do it too.

And calling the 2006 field pathetic compared to Laver's year is a joke. Players now are way more athletic and professional than back then.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

And calling the 2006 field pathetic compared to Laver's year is a joke.

LOL you have to be kidding me. 1969 had Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Smith, Ashe, aging Gonzales. It was probably the deepest field in history, just look at Laver's draws to his Grand Slam. The 2006 field is WAY weaker than that. Federer faced Nadal who was only a clay courter back then, Roddick, Ljubicic, Davydenko, and Blake. Blake was the year end #4 that year, and wasnt Davydenko year end #3.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

LOL you have to be kidding me. 1969 had Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Smith, Ashe, aging Gonzales. It was probably the deepest field in history, just look at Laver's draws to his Grand Slam. The 2006 field is WAY weaker than that. Federer faced Nadal who was only a clay courter back then, Roddick, Ljubicic, Davydenko, and Blake. Blake was the year end #4 that year.

Like I said, the game is a lot more professional now. The general standard of play is now higher.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Like I said, the game is a lot more professional now. The general standard of play is now higher.

You are entitled your opinion but in the context of their own times which is all we can compare the 69 field was way tougher than the 2006 field. The 2006 field was basically the midst of another brief transition era with Safin and Hewitt DONE, and I mean 110% done as any kind of contender, Roddick on decline and never consistently at his 2003-2005 level ever again and barely a slam contender anymore, Ferrero and Coria long done, Agassi retiring, and Djokovic and Murray nobodies on the scene at that point, Nadal still only a clay courter despite his at that point fluke Wimbledon final (Robby Kendrick a qualifier should have beaten him in straight sets at Wimbledon that year). The 1969 field has atleast 5 players who rate in the top 25 players of all time today. Blake and Davydenko were the 3rd and 4th best players in the World in 2006. There simply is no comaprision.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

And it's not Federer's fault Laver was banned from playing Grand Slams for the most of his prime. See, I can do it too.

And calling the 2006 field pathetic compared to Laver's year is a joke. Players now are way more athletic and professional than back then.

you said it, the fact that Laver was deprievd from playing the traditional slam events during his prime years (1963-1967) avoided him doubling his records at traditional majors.That is why we have to consider pro majors, with the pro fields being pretty much tougher than amateurs.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

LOL you have to be kidding me. 1969 had Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Smith, Ashe, aging Gonzales. It was probably the deepest field in history, just look at Laver's draws to his Grand Slam. The 2006 field is WAY weaker than that. Federer faced Nadal who was only a clay courter back then, Roddick, Ljubicic, Davydenko, and Blake. Blake was the year end #4 that year, and wasnt Davydenko year end #3.

That´s it.To have Davydenko and Blake as the 3 rd and 4 th best player, just says it all.

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by kiki

That´s it.To have Davydenko and Blake as the 3 rd and 4 th best player, just says it all.

Yeah I mean one guy who for a long time had a winning/even h2h with Nadal and another with a current winning h2h with Nadal. Yeah, total jokes. Not even fit to do drills with Sunday grannies.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Yeah I mean one guy who for a long time had a winning/even h2h with Nadal and another with a current winning h2h with Nadal. Yeah, total jokes. Not even fit to do drills with Sunday grannies.

From 2004-2006 any decent flat ball hitter in the top 30 owned Nadal on hard courts (which is all he and Blake played on and when all of Blake's wins came). Not exactly a stamp of legend status. Davydenko is a solid player who has had a nice career, nice as in say Tom Okker like nice, a guy who was generally ranked 8-12 around then, as opposed to year end #3 and longtime top 5.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

From 2004-2006 any decent flat ball hitter in the top 30 owned Nadal on hard courts (which is all he and Blake played on and when all of Blake's wins came). Not exactly a stamp of legend status. Davydenko is a solid player who has had a nice career, nice as in say Tom Okker like nice, a guy who was generally ranked 8-12 around then, as opposed to year end #3 and longtime top 5.

Lol no.

10lolnos

[SoBad]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

Lol no.

10lolnos

Davydenko is a solid player.

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

Lol no.

10lolnos

Nikolay Davydenko is a solid player.

[SoBad]

I think we need to restart this discussion by establishing that Nikolay Vladimirovich Davydenko is an accomplished professional tennis player.

[Vcore89]

Originally Posted by SoBad

Davydenko is a solid player.

Like Ferrer is a solid player. Hey the guy won at least one WTF as oppose to Mr. Rafael's nada (as in zit).

[Vcore89]

Nadal is GOATesque for sure. No?

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Nikolay Davydenko is a solid player.

Rosol God mode one set, and 40+ UEs and 60MPH serves the next.

An in form Davydenko can beat anyone, but on a bad day even your grandmother could thrash him.

He is just about the least consistent and 'unsolid' player on tour.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Vcore89

Like Ferrer is a solid player. Hey the guy won at least one WTF as oppose to Mr. Rafael's nada (as in zit).

I would take 10 slams over 1 WTF, but hey maybe thats just me. Back to the topic at hand I would take the careers of vritually everyone in the 1969 top 10 over Davydenko's. Anyone who actually thinks 1969 is weaker than 2006 has clearly done no research at all.